Slashdot Mirror
Bad News If You Make $150,000 to $300,000: Higher Taxes for Many (wsj.com)
From a WSJ report: If President Donald Trump sticks to what he has said, Americans earning between $149,400 and $307,900 are most likely to see an increase in their taxes as a result of tax reform (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled). Those figures come from a recent study by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in Washington, and are based on Mr. Trump's statements and proposals. The study concludes that nearly one-third of about 19 million households in that income range could see tax increases averaging from $3,000 to $4,000 a year. By contrast, less than 10% of households earning the least or the most -- below $25,000 or above $733,000 -- would owe more after a tax overhaul. Over all, the study found that about 20% of taxpayers would owe more after tax reform than before it. The issue of tax reform's winners and losers has resurfaced after top congressional Republicans and the Trump administration released a set of broad principles for tax policy on Thursday containing few details.
You all voted for conservative politicians in the States who ran on cut now pay later starting with Reagan and vodoo economics.
Later is here! No it is not Obama's fault. It is yours and your parents. The banks need their money and it is not fair for the rest of us to pay higher taxes and no services for things like healthcare. Pay the piper man and in 30 years we can pay off the interest and $19,000,000,000,000!
Oh and lets blame it on the liberals so you can keep your nice home? Well expect a dollar crash and Great Depression 2.0 as the value of the dollar is nothing because the credit built on a house of cards for tax cuts and spending increases comes crashing once bankers start demanding a return on their money.
http://saveie6.com/
middle class?!
fucks sake i make less than 50.000$ a year in Sweden an pay 33â... of that in taxes!!! and i try to consider myself middle class.
anyone with a salary of that kind should pay a minimum of 60% in taxes and yeap, for that kind of taxes free health care, child support, free education for children, excellent roads on winter time and so on.
you guys in America are waay gone, have people living in New York going suicide for not affording health care but still refuse to pay more taxes, geez..
It's called "trickle-down economy". You asked for it, you got it. Staying rich becomes easier, getting rich harder.
You are obviously not poor and still fit and well.
It is easy to complain about taxes until one day, maybe, when you need it. Then you learn that it is morally just for people to pay taxes to help others.
Here in Australia we pay what you would call high taxes. The society seems to accept paying taxes as it has value. We have free health care and a safety net for those who need help whether they are old or handicapped you name it. Not perfect, but it gets tweaked over time.
It is possible to have a very good standard of living with 'high' taxes.
At > $150k you are living a good life. Good for you, but care for others.
So you get to decide what is morally right and force your views...interesting indeed.
"Small government" is just rule by the rich. We've tried that already. In fact, it's the thing we've spent most of human history trying. It's a terrible system for everybody except the few people at the very top. Honestly, I don't think there's anything less "out of the box" than "let's let all the rich people make the rules and not try to constrain them in any way". Why is it that no conservatives have any working knowledge of history?
The vast majority of people would benefit from a larger government funded by higher tax rates. The rich fight this tooth and nail because they think it will be worse for them and they do not care at all whether it's better for everybody else, which is just selfish and evil, but the most important part is that it's not even true. A society in which public infrastructure is more effective and plentiful benefits EVERYBODY, including the people paying for the largest portion of it. It's incredibly obvious, but selfishness has a powerful ability to blind, it seems.
$150K-$300K isn't middle class. That's fucking rich. Yes, I know, you whine about the cost of living when you chose to live in a rich neighborhood. Howeveer, that's your choice for living in a rich neighborhood.
The US gov. is a mirror of the society, the politicians are a mirror of YOU, the ones that vote them, the ones that support them.
Stop blaming others.
I did not hear of you guys "hanging" all those politicians, bankers and lobby-ist that led to crashing the system in 2008 and destroyed the middle class. I did not hear you guys asking the banks to pay all those trillions back with interest directly to all those affected. I do not hear you guys asking for the army to be reduced and stop fighing others wars, impose gun control and more (free or subsidized) education for all, more taxes and transparency of all those taxes and fucking the lobby-ists and whatnot. I do not hear you guys asking for smaller car engines, smaller houses, modest living, helping your own people in need, decency allaround.
Guys, you went over board with the capitalism and perverted the democracy. I really hope you figure it out.
So you get to decide what is morally right and force your views...interesting indeed.
That is a very concise explanation of laws.
Either way I've seen what happens when poor Americans get ill.
Since they can't afford healthcare they have to rely on handouts.
In that situation there are two kind of people. Good ones that cares for others and that pays up a small sum so no-one has to die, and then there are people that keeps their money to themselves.
So, the choice is between a society where:
1) people dies in the street.
2) good people have to pay for everyone healthcare and uncaring people can keep their money.
3) everyone is taxed so that people don't have to die and good people don't have to pay for everything themselves.
You may not like paying taxes but you are defending a situation that benefits psychopaths more than anyone else.
Maybe, but that's a result of lifestyle choices. $150000 for a family of four is definitely easy street in terms of income.
I do acknowledge, however, that many families in that bracket can feel like they are struggling.
Oh, hey, look everyone! It's one of those fine representatives of the Master Race trying to convince us all that our biggest problem is a bunch of religious nut-bags in the Middle East, rather than the unholy alliance of Big Oil, Ayn Rand libertarians and our very own religious nutbags, the Dominionists.
Kill our dependence on oil and the money goes away for Middle Eastern extremism.
Now that it's the micro-handed crotch grabber's policy more taxes are bad? What happened to "I like paying taxes" and "taxes pay for civilization herp derp?"
As one of the people in the $150k-$300k range, I do feel I should be paying more taxes. The problem is if the increase tax burden is hitting the upper middle class harder than it is hitting the upper class. Just as I feel my tax burden as a percentage of my income should go up more than those in the middle class, the tax burden of the wealthy should go up more as a percentage of their income than mine does. Federal taxes are the primary form of progressive taxation in the US and one of our few tools to combat wealth inequality.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I have never understood this. I can't sell part of my property to pay my real estate taxes. When I retire, and my income drops dramatically, I am forced to sell my home (and go where?) because that's how I am expected to pay for someone else's child's high school education? This seems fundamentally unfair.
Let the people who have kids pay for them, or make local taxes a percentage of income (or both), so at least I am not forced to live on the streets because of someone else's lifestyle choice (i.e., parenthood).
Having kids is not just a lifestyle choice. It is what creates the workforce which will keep growing your food, selling it to you, providing your health care, funding your social security, upholding the value of your personal investments, and so on as you age. The act of raising a child, whether your own or adopted, creates hundreds of thousands of dollars of human capital in our society (much more or less depending on the quality of parenting). You could save billions to fund your retirement, but without other people's kids that value would all evaporate. And in a modern economy, it is the kids in those pricey school districts who will be doing most of the heavy lifting (figuratively) in keeping the future economy running.
Not everyone has to have children to keep the economy running, but someone does have to make that sacrifice. Complaining about doing your part to fund the creation of future generations is asinine.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No it doesn't. With 150k you can easily afford private health insurance with low deductibles. You're earning ~$10k/month after taxes, the worst insurance deductible is $10k/year.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You will pay either way. If you simply allow people to go bankrupt, then there are significant legal and societal costs attached to major medical interventions. If they have no money or assets at all, then they still get the hospital treatment, and your taxes end up paying for their health care anyways. Unless your talking about literally throwing anyone out on the street who doesn't have health care, then you will still pay.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, mission accomplished. We're all arguing about whether $150K is rich or middle class - and not talking about the fact that the pain stops at $300K - which, coincidentally, is probably where the most egregious tax inequities start. It's pretty hard to make >$300K a year without a lot of that being in the form of tax-preferred passive income like dividends and capital gains. There are more Americans than you'd think in this income bracket, and a truly disproportion of total US income is attributable to that group.
So Trump has us middle-to-upper-middle classers arguing about whether or not we're really rich, and the truly rich are getting to keep all the bounty. Kind of a clever trick for a moron like Trump. But then again, the summary starts with "If Trump sticks to what he has said", and Trump has never stuck to anything he's said, so why are we even discussing this. We were supposed to have "a great and beautiful healthcare system with lower cost and far better coverage" by now. "And it'll be really easy, believe me"...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It might be politically easier to increase the standard deduction above what most people make. It would achieve much the same result as eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, and people won't complain about losing the deduction when they aren't paying taxes anyway.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The whole Trump "administration" is fraudulent. They will have to pass a blank tax bill before actually writing something with content. Republicans have had a long time to plan what they would do if they were in power. All that they can do still is to attack the Democrats. It is always Obama and Hillary's fault even when in control of all three branches. If that doesn't work, go after the Media.
There is no Republican tax plan! They have forgotten how to make a plan.
Well, mission accomplished. We're all arguing about whether $150K is rich or middle class - and not talking about the fact that the pain stops at $300K - which, coincidentally, is probably where the most egregious tax inequities start.
Nearly the entire Republican party is built upon a foundation of people who resent professionals (engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers) but idolize the wealthy. People are more likely to see $600k McMansions near where they live and resent those who can afford them, but they more rarely see the $6 million dollar homes of the rich. They assume those who gather extreme wealth are the best among us and deserve every penny, but those in the upper middle class are just pompous liberals who never had a hard days work in their life.
Class warfare is alive and well, and the wealthy are winning by a large margin.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
You're right about our shitty infrastructure and defense budget. You are, however, wrong about people starving in the streets. It is nearly impossible for anyone in this country, who is not addicted to drugs or has a severe mental illness, to starve to death.
Starving to death in the streets is a lie told over and over by the left when they try to justify taking _more_ of your money. The statistics do NOT back up your statement.
In 2016 NOBODY in the entire USA starved to death due to lack of money to buy food. Yeah, as far as anyone can tell NOT A SINGLE PERSON. There were a handful of murders where old people were deliberately starved to death so a relative could obtain their shit (inheritance) and a few cases where a mother/father spent their money on drugs instead of formula/food for the baby/children. In these cases the money was available for food, it was just withheld or deliberately used for drugs.
Every year there are also a handful of cases where people deliberately starve themselves due to some psychological problem (anorexia, etc)
Soup Kitches/Food Pantries are EVERYWHERE, as are Food Stamps and EBT.
So you want taxes to pay for things that benefit you personally, and screw everything (and everyone) else. Typical libertarian.